The UK Government Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Consultation ended on Tuesday, 25th February 2025. The consultation was initiated due to ongoing disputes regarding the application of UK copyright law to the training of AI models. Rights holders are struggling to control the use of their works in AI training and seek remuneration, while AI developers face legal uncertainty, which is undermining investment in and adoption of AI technology in the UK.

This uncertainty cannot continue, as it risks limiting investment, innovation, and growth in the AI sector, while also preventing creative industries from effectively exercising their rights.

Options Considered in the Consultation

The consultation examined the following options:

• Option 0: Do nothing – Copyright and related laws remain unchanged.
• Option 1: Strengthen copyright by requiring licensing in all cases.
• Option 2: Introduce a broad data mining exception.
• Option 3: Introduce a data mining exception that allows rights holders to reserve their rights, supported by transparency measures.

The UK Government supported Option 3, arguing that it strikes a balance between AI development and copyright protections by allowing rights holders to opt out while ensuring greater transparency. Respondents were asked 47 further questions to determine whether they agreed with this choice and why.

Key Concerns and Missing Distinctions

None of the options presented sufficiently address the complexities of text and data mining (TDM) and AI training.

A crucial oversight in this consultation is the failure to distinguish between AI training on academic research and AI training on commercial creative works. AI trained on high-quality, publicly funded academic research has the potential to drive breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology – yet the consultation treats all copyrighted material as though it were the same.

Academic research is supported by public organizations and charities such as UK Research and Innovation, the European Research Council, or Horizon Europe, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the Royal Society, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York (to name only a few). These funders, whether public or private, measure their success by the number of lives improved by the research they support. However, if this research is held behind a paywall and made available only to those who can afford to pay, these benefits are significantly diminished.

Allowing free TDM and AI training on academic research and research data for all would stimulate innovation and create a level playing field for small, medium, and large companies, ultimately encouraging investment in the UK. This type of AI use has the potential to accelerate discoveries in medicine, such as cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s, and to address other pressing societal challenges.

The Risks of Unrestricted AI Training on Creative Works

While I am not deeply familiar with the concerns of the ‘creative industries’ (film, music, and commercial publishing), I recognize that AI’s impact on these sectors raises valid concerns. Unlike academic research, unrestricted TDM and AI training on creative works could lead to widespread infringement and deepfakes on an unprecedented scale. Such developments would likely be driven by social media vanity and financial exploitation, exacerbating the already overwhelming volume of low-quality, misleading content online.

This misuse of AI would further fuel the ‘doom scrolling’ addiction and degrade the integrity of digital spaces, serving as a clear example of AI being used irresponsibly.

AI as a Tool for Good

AI is (still) a tool—it is up to individuals and policymakers to ensure it is used for the right purposes rather than the wrong ones.

A more effective approach would be to introduce a specific exception for AI training on publicly funded academic research, ensuring that its benefits remain widely accessible while protecting creative industries from potential harm. This would be a powerful example of AI and TDM being used for the good of society, fostering innovation while maintaining fairness in access to knowledge.

While Option 3 suggested by the government would align the UK with the EU, making a clear distinction between academic and commercial works would provide the competitive advantage the government seeks.

Conclusion

By implementing these measures, the UK can position itself as a leader in ethical AI development, balancing the interests of researchers, AI developers, and rights holders while maximizing AI’s societal benefits.